Tennessee Departmentof Education
Scope of Review: The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office, Title III State Consolidated Grant Group monitored theTennesseeDepartment of Education (TDE) the week ofMay 3-7, 2010. This was a comprehensive review of the TDE’s administration of the Title III, Part A program, which is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended.
During the review, the ED team conducted several monitoring activities. The ED team reviewed evidence of State-level monitoring and technical assistance, implementation of the State’s Title III accountability system, and fiscal and administrative oversight with the State educational agency (SEA). The ED team also visited two local educational agencies (LEAs)–Rutherford County Schools (RCS) and Davidson County (Metro Nashville Public Schools) (MNPS)-where they reviewed documentation and interviewed district and school staff.
Previous Audit Findings: None
Previous Monitoring Findings: This was the second monitoring visit to Tennesseefor Title III, Part A. The first visit was conducted in April 2006. At that time the State had findings regarding carryover, not implementing the Title III immigrant program, non-alignment of the limited English proficiency (LEP) standards to the achievement of academic content, not making Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) determinations for SY 2004-2005, and not having an alignment study conducted in order to be able to compare the previous English language assessment with the current assessment.
Monitoring Indicators for Title III, Part A
State Monitoring of SubgranteesElement Number /
Description
/ Status / PageState Monitoring of Subgrantees
sections 3115, 3116, and 3121;
EDGAR 34 CFR 80.40 / Finding / 2
State Monitoring of Subgrantees
State Monitoring: The State has a process to monitor subgrantees and the evaluation components of the monitoring plan to address the requirements under sections 3113, 3115, 3121, 3122 and 3302 of the ESEA.
Finding: The TDE’s procedures for monitoring its Title III subgrantees for compliance with Title III of the ESEA were insufficient to ensure that all areas of noncompliance were identified. Although the TDE has a plan to monitor Title III subgrantees using a consolidated approach, the plan does not include all required Title III components: teacher English fluency, fiscal requirements, private school inclusion, or the two required Title III activities of professional development and providing high-quality language instruction educational programs.
Citation: Section 80.40 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requires grantees to monitor grant and subgrant activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements.
Section 9304(a) of the ESEA requires that the SEA ensure that (1) programs authorized under the ESEA are administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications, and (2) the State will use fiscal controls and funds accounting procedures that will ensure the proper disbursement of and accounting for Federal funds.
Further Action Required: The TDE must submit to ED its plan for reviewing and revising its monitoring protocol to ensure that it includes all Title III requirements. Once the monitoring protocol has been revised and submitted, TDE must submit to ED thetimeline for monitoring using the new protocol, evidence that the timeline has been implemented and feedback given to LEAs.
Standards, Assessments and AccountabilityElement Number /
Description
/ Status / PageElement
1.1 / English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards
section 3113 / Finding / 3
Element 1.2 / English Language Proficiency (ELP) Assessment
sections 3113 and 3116 / X / X
Element 1.3 / Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
sections 3122(a)(1)(2)(3) and 1111(b)(2)(B) / Findings
Recommendation / 3-5
Element 1.4 / Data Collection and Reporting
sections 3121 and 3123; EDGAR 34 CFR 76.731 / Finding / 5
Monitoring Area 1: Standards, Assessments and Accountability
Element 1.1 - ELP Standards: The State provided evidence of a process that complies with section 3113 of the ESEA.
Finding: The TDE did not demonstrate that its State ELP standards are aligned to the achievement of the State’s academic content and student achievement standards in English language arts and mathematics. This process has been delayed because the State plans to adopt the “common core” standards.
Citation: Section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA requires each State educational agency plan to describe how the agency will establish standards and objectives for raising the level of English proficiency that are derived from the four recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing, and that are aligned with achievement of the challenging State academic content and student achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA.
Further Action Required: The TDE must develop and submit to ED a plan, including a timeline, which outlines the steps it will take to ensure that the State ELP standards are aligned with the achievement of the State academic content and student academic achievement standards in reading/language arts and mathematics.
Element 1.3 -AMAOs: AMAOs have been developed and AMAO determinations have been made for Title III-served LEAs.
Finding: The TDE has been making AMAO calculations based upon whether an LEA missed the “same AMAO” from the prior year. This provision is inconsistent with the Title III statute, which provides that the failure to meet any of the AMAO targets results in a determination that the LEA has not met the AMAOs.
Citation:Section 3122(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA requires that States develop AMAOs in a manner that uses consistent methods and measurements. Section 3122(a)(3)(A) indicates that achievement objectives for Title III-served LEP students shall include: annual increases in students making progress towards attainment of English proficiency, annual increases in students attaining English proficiency, and making adequate yearly progress.
Further Action Required: The TDE must submit to ED a revised plan for making AMAO determinations for all years that the State made determinations using the “same only” comparison. This plan must be submitted to ED, as well as evidence that districts have been notified of past AMAO determinations. The State must also submitevidence that it will hold subgrantees that have not met AMAOs for two and four consecutive years accountable, using the specific sanctions required in section 3122(b)(2) and (4) of ESEA.
Recommendation: The State is using a cohort model for AMAO two (proficiency) which may exclude students that have been in the country less than three years. This contradicts the Notice of Final Interpretations of Title III. The TDE needs to amend its State Consolidated Application demonstrating that TDE is in full compliance with all components of the Secretary’s Notice of Final Interpretations, as all States are required to be by the end of School Year (SY) 2010. The TDE is encouraged to submit this amendment as soon as possible to ensure compliance.
Element 1.4 - Data Collection:The State has established and implemented clear criteria for the administration, scoring, analysis, and reporting components of its ELP assessments, and has a system for monitoring and improving the ongoing quality of its assessment systems. A data system is in place to meet all Title III data requirements, including capacity to follow Title III-served students for two years after exiting, and State approach to following ELP progress and attainment over time.
Finding:The TDE did not provide evidence that it ensures the English language proficiency of all limited English proficient (LEP) children is assessed on an annual basis. Further efforts must be made so that the TDE assesses all LEP students and is able to document and monitor the number of students that did not participate in the State ELP assessment, and the reasons for their non-participation. The State currently estimates data discrepancies to be an ELL mobility factor as high as 39% a year.
Citation: Section 3113(b)(3)(D)of the ESEA requires States to ensure that Title III subgrantees annually assess the English language proficiency of all Title III-served LEP children in grades K-12.
Further Action Required: Further efforts must be made so that the TDE assesses all LEP students for English language proficiency and is able to document and monitor the number of students that did not participate in the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA), and the reasons for their non-participation. The TDE must provide written guidance to its Title III subgrantees informing them of the requirement to annually assess the English language proficiency of all limited English proficient students (K-12). The TDE must also develop a means of documenting reasons for student non-participation in the ACCESS and provide evidence of this system to ED. A copy of the guidance, the timeline for developing a means to document reasons for non-participation, and the process used for implementation must be provided to ED.
Instructional Support
Element Number /Description
/ Status / PageElement
2.1 / State-Level Activities
section 3111 (b)(2) / X / X
Element
2.2 / State Oversight and Review of Local Plans
sections 3116(a) and 3115(c); EDGAR 34 CFR 76.770 / Finding / 5
Element
2.3 / Activities by Agencies Experiencing Substantial Increases in Immigrant Children and Youth
sections 3114 and 3115 / Finding / 6
Element
2.4 / Private School Participation
section 9501 / Finding / 6-7
Element 2.5 / Parental Notification and Outreach
section 3302 / X
Monitoring Area 2: Instructional Support
Element 2.2–State Oversight and Review of Local Plans: The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the provision for submitting an application to the SEA (section 3116(a) of ESEA).
Finding: Although the State has a plan in place for the approval of local plans for regular Title III State formula funds, the timeline for immigrant funds under section 3114(d)(1) of ESEA is February of the award year, thus not allowing districts or immigrant students to have full access to these Title III funds during their allotted time.
Citation: Section 3116 of the ESEA requires LEAs to submit a plan to the SEA that, among other things, describes the programs and activities proposed to be developed, implemented, and administered and describes how the LEA will use the subgrant funds to meet annual measurable achievement objectives.
Further Action Required: The TDE must provide evidence to ED that it has revised its application process for immigrant subgrants to ensure that the immigrant funds are distributed earlier. The State also needs to ensure that immigrant plans are reviewed for immigrant activities and corresponding budgets. TDE needs to submit a copy of its revised application process to ED for SY2010-2011, as well as a schedule for any training that the State conducts to address this issue (agenda, training materials, etc.).
Element 2.3 - Activities by Agencies Experiencing Substantial Increases in Immigrant Children and Youth:The subgrantee receiving funds under section 3114(d)(1) of the ESEA shall use the funds to pay for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth.
Finding: The TDE did not ensure that the LEAs that are awarded funds under section
3114(d)(1) of ESEA use the funds for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth. Rutherford County was unable to specify how they use funds awarded under section 3115(e) to enhance instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth. Additionally, the TDE has not provided guidance to its LEAs regarding allowable activities under immigrant grants.
Citation: Section 3115(e) of the ESEA requires eligible entities to pay for activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth which may include: family literacy and parent outreach; provision of tutorials, mentoring and academic or career counseling; identification and acquisition of curricular materials; and other instructional services that are designed to assist immigrant children and youth to achieve in elementary and secondary schools in the United States.
Section 3116 of the ESEA requires LEAs to submit a plan to the SEA that, among other components, describes the programs and activities proposed to be developed, implemented, and administered.
Further Action Required: The TDE must submit to ED: 1) a plan with a timeline indicating how it will ensure that its LEAs conduct activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth, and evidence that this plan has been implemented for the 2010-2011 school year. The TDE must require LEAs seeking funds under section 3114(d)(1)of ESEA to submit plans that are specifically targeted for the immigrant children and youth subgrant.
Element 2.4 Private School Participation
Finding:In one LEA visited, Davidson County, the district private school coordinator indicatedthat consultations with private schools were delayed until January. This delay did not allow the LEA sufficient time to identify the needs of the private school LEP students and their teachers and design a program to meet those identified needs. Consultations with private school officials must occur in a timely manner.
Citation: Section 9501(a)(1) of the ESEA requires LEAs to conduct timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials. To ensure timely and meaningful consultation, section 9501(c)(1) of ESEA requires that LEAs consult with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of the Title III program.
Further Action Required: The TDE must develop and implement a timeline and plan to ensure subgrantees conduct timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of the Title III program. The TDE must provide ED with evidence that the plan has been implemented. See also 2.2 State Oversight and review of Local Plans.
Recommendation: The TDEshould review the guidance that it sends to LEAs in order that the guidance reflects Title III policy: one State form indicates that Title III funds need to be used for “effective integration of technology into the daily curriculum.”
FiduciaryElement Number /
Description
/ Status / PageElement
3.1 / State Allocations, Reallocations and Carryover
section 3111(b); 20 USC 6821(b)(3); sections 3114(a)-(d) / Findings / 8
Element
3.2 / District Allocations, Reallocations and Carryover
section 3115 / Findings / 8-9
Element
3.3 / Maintenance of Effort
sections 1120A and 9021 / X / X
Element
3.4 / Supplement, Not Supplant – General
section 3115(g) / Findings, Recommendation / 9-10
Element 3.4A / Supplement, Not Supplant – Assessment
sections 1111(b)(7) and 3113(b)(2) / Finding / 10
Monitoring Area 3: Fiduciary
Element 3.1 State Allocations, Reallocations and Carryover
Recommendation:Since the State had a proposal to reallocate funds to districts with smaller numbers of LEP students in order that these districts would qualify as “stand-alone” districts as opposed to joining a consortium, ED recommends that the SEA make public its revised policy for reallocation of Title III funds.
Element 3.2 – District Allocation, Reallocations and Carryover: The SEA ensures that its LEAs comply with the provisions related to LEA use of funds under section 3115 of the ESEA.
Finding:The SEA has not ensured that its Title III subgrantees meet the 2% administrative cost restriction. One LEA, Davidson County, stated that it understands indirect costs to be separate from and in addition to the 2% cap on administrative costs. The Davidson County Title III approved budget listed both the 2% allowable for administration andindirect costs, computed separately at the approved rate. Both of these costs combined exceed the 2% restriction. Additionally,the amount that Davidson County had calculated for administrative costs alone exceeds the 2% restriction.
Citation: Section 3115(b) of the ESEA states that the limit of funds that may be used for administering this subgrant may not be more than 2% of the grant. This includes all direct and indirect costs associated with administering the Title III program.
Further Action Required: The TDE must provide ED with a detailed description of howit has informed its Title III subgrantees of the 2% administrative costs restriction on LEAs’ Section 3114(a) subgrants. This documentation must include letters to LEAs or agendas for technical assistance meetings. The SEA must also provide ED with a plan for how it will annually ensure the correct implementation of this requirement, including providing information to LEAs, approval of subgrantee budgets, and clarification of this 2% cap on the state consolidated application.
Element 3.4 - Supplement, Not Supplant – General: The SEA ensures that the LEA complies with the provision related to supplement, not supplant under section 3115(g) of the ESEA.
Finding (1):The TDEhas not ensured that LEAs accurately implement supplement not supplant, as it applies to Title III. One LEA, Davidson County, used Title III funds to cover printing costs of student registration materialsused for all students. In addition to raising a non-supplanting concerns, this does not appear to be an allowable cost under the Title III program.